In article , "John Maxson"
wrote:

I don't see you putting any pressure on the other side to
produce 51-L telemetry evidence proving the absence of
valve commands to any and all of the thrusters, nor do I
see you clammering for Oberg to put up or shut up with
his 'Area 51 Aliens' sort of innuendo and insinuation. You
just take out your frustration on me, the one who stood
up in a full meeting of project engineers before the disaster
and warned that incomplete RCS work at the pad should
receive top priority for 51-L, because it was Crit 1!

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)


You're right: I am frustrated with you. The argument you present
essentially amounts to "I can't prove I'm right, but you can't prove
I'm wrong." In the absence of any other well-documented and supported
theory, this might almost be acceptable. But there IS another
well-documented and supported theory. Thus, you must produce
documentation and support at least equal to the other theory to win
acceptance.

Get it, John? As long as you are unable or unwilling to put together an
iron-clad case, you'll have people dismissing you as a crackpot.

I once had an eye witness to an in-flight breakup swear there was a
bomb on the airplane. He knew there was because he saw a flash and
heard a "BOOM" as the wings came off. In actual fact, the airplane
broke up from gross overstress. He managed to tie up the investigation
for almost two years using essentially the same "You can't prove I'm
wrong" argument. (Sidenote--metal failing in extreme overload often
produces a flash.) The absence of any physical evidence of a bomb
(outward-curled metal, scorch marks, molten balls, etc.) just
reinforced his belief. Are you falling into the same trap?

Moe